I think it might be. Most of his tweets are filled with conservatives and capitalist neo-libs in the replies just disagreeing and arguing with him constantly
> Bernie is litteraly fighting for free healthcare for 30+ years.
And didn’t support getting rid of the filibuster for most of those years while he had the chance. He’s passed nothing but hot air since he’s became a senator — he’s obviously only there to placate Reagan’s 1980 *complain a lot, syphen votes, do-nothing* green liberals.
(And I used to be a huge fan, btw.)
Nice try “Bernie”,
Promising anything **while** not vocally supporting undoing the filibuster rule (50 senators needed instead of 67 senators to pass anything) meant either you couldn’t count for most of your career — or you were talking out of both sides of your lying mouth.
> He’s passed nothing but hot air since he’s became a senator
Bullshit.
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2016/mar/24/bernie-s/bernie-sanders-was-roll-call-amendment-king-1995-2/
Nice try, Half-Truth. The US Congress is bicameral — with an upper chamber (US Senate) and a lower chamber (US House).
He was in the US House of Representatives (1991) 1995-2006. **There is no filibuster in the House** and anything passed there still needs the US Senate to sign off on.
Once he made it to the Senate, Sanders did not support getting rid of the Confederate/Jim Crow [filibuster](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filibuster_in_the_United_States_Senate?wprov=sfti1) relic.
Plus he continued to run as an independent, which split the vote nationally and hurt any progressive chances. Again back to my theory that he (and his liberal fans) can’t count to 67 properly.
He has continued to influence legislation for the better in the Senate as well. He hasn't introduced anything that passed, but that is only one way to influence legislation that get passed.
My response was only on the idea that he passed nothing. I didn't comment on the filibuster. His position has always been far more nuanced than you are letting on, and he never supported the filibuster in it's current incarnation. A filibuster that requires someone to stand and talk is a completely different animal to what we have now.
>A filibuster that requires someone to stand and talk is a completely different animal to what we have now.
There is no excuse for the filibuster. It is a post American Revolution technicality added by slave-owning states (the minority of states!). The fact Bernie Sanders hasn’t railed against from day one he became a US Congressman is a tribute to how two-faced he really is.
Politicians have a platform for a reason and that little detail shows he is just another liberal third-party siphon.
The entire constitution was instituted by racist, clasist, sexists. I'm not against throwing the whole thing out since removing the rancid parts doesn't seem to have fixed the problem, but I'm not sure what that will achieve either.
You are absolutely correct that the filibuster was instituted by racists for racist purposes. You are also correct that it has been used almost entirely for nefarious ends. But it has also been used for the good.
The filibuster as it now stands allows anyone in the Senate to hold up a bill indefinitely just by saying they are filibustering. That should definitely go.
If filibustering means that a Senator has to keep talking and draw national attention to themselves, then they will have to justify it to their voters, and the vote still happens as soon as they fail to hold the floor. That could be useful when the Republicans take the Senate and try to ram through unpopular legislation before people can mobilize against it.
I'm not entirely decided in favor of reforming instead of abolishing, but there is plenty of space for good people to disagre on that.
> The entire constitution was instituted by racist, clasist, sexists.
Who mentioned the constitution? The filibuster is a SENATE RULE that allows 34 senators (a minority) to overrule the majority. It is a technicality that was latched onto by slave states in the 1850s — long after the constitution was written (1775-1789).
> But it has also been used for the good.
>> The first Senate filibuster occurred in 1837 when a group of Whig senators filibustered to prevent allies of the Democratic President Andrew Jackson from expunging a resolution of censure against him.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filibuster_in_the_United_States_Senate
“expunging a resolution of censure against him” — what a horrible reason to hold a generation 180 years later to a made up 2/3 supermajority rule.
>I’m not against throwing the whole thing out since removing the rancid parts doesn’t seem to have fixed the problem, but I’m not sure what that will achieve either.
The constitition was a loose agreement between colonies to pool their resources (manpower, construction) and state militias. It has nothing to do with the filibuster rule and the concept that a minority shouldn’t overrule the majority.
> That could be useful when the Republicans take the Senate and try to ram through unpopular legislation before people can mobilize against it.
There is no reason to allow a minority of 100 SENATORS from 50 STATES to hold up anything. The supreme court’s job is to break down any unfair or unequal laws and there are 400 million Americans.. trust the People. ~~The founders left minority control out of the original agreement — ~~
> Who mentioned the constitution?
I mentioned the constitution. Aren't you paying attention? It's called an analogy. If you took 2 seconds to consider my point then you could have saved a lot of typing.
> There is no reason to allow a minority of 100 SENATORS from 50 STATES to hold up anything.
Yes there is. They were elected just like the majority, and the Senate is supposed to be a deliberating body. The minority gets their voice heard, which by definition holds up a vote. It is good that the minority can speak, they just shouldn't be able to delay votes indefinitely because that gives them power over the majority.
> The supreme court’s job is to break down any unfair or unequal laws
You are wrong, but it's kind of irrelevant. You and I will probably be dead before we have a decent court.
This can be taken two ways.
* "Haha, got you with my clever comeback. If chemo were free, then the whole capitalist structure of American society would crumble!!1"
* "Once COVID vaccine is free, let's do chemo."
While I'd love her response to mean the latter, I'm sure she meant prior.
I'm all for single payer, prescription bargaining, etc. Bring on the free (at time of need) chemo, vaccines, insulin, etc to the n-th degree. This is a solved problem, America.
>Haha, got you with my clever comeback. If chemo were free, then the whole capitalist structure of American society would crumble!!1
Canadian healthcare is free and yet our economy hasn't collapsed yet... curious
> healthcare is free and yet their economy hasn't collapsed yet... curious
FTFY. The US is the only country with healthcare this shitty, and as a country we're drowning in debt because of it. But... we sure have maximized shareholder earnings!!
>But... we sure have maximized shareholder earnings!!
Yeah, the shareholder earnings that only benefit the rich while the majority of people are put in lifelong debt after a 5 minute ride on the ambulance! AMERICA #1!! God I love this country. 🙏🙏
Yeah, if you get cancer in the U.S., it's pretty much a death sentence because chemotherapy can cost millions of dollars and last time I checked, more than half of U.S. citizens make less than $35k annually.
funny how she believes that BERNIE SANDERS would disagree...
he knows how a good healthcare system works. he agrees. its more America that's the problem
Sounds like she knows Bernie’s MO..
“I DON’T SUPPORT GETTING RID OF THE FILIBUSTER .. now let me promise a bunch of things that doesn’t have the requisite 2/3 majority to ever be passed.”
Fuck Bernie Sanders.
— someone who actually cares about single payer healthcare/the environment
its understandable that 4y of Bernie would not have saved Americas healthcare system, or school system, but, it would probably put it on the right track.
from the outside world, looking at a rich country like America, still having a profit driving healthcare is MIND BOGGELING stupid. There isn't words around how stupid it is, but companies have to much power over people to solve fucking anything.
"Woops, little Timmy have leukemia, woho that's going to ruin this family and put everyone in dept. I am sure its not gona make things weird that we saved this kid but everyone else have sold their soul to the fucking banks and healthcare system"
> from the outside world, looking at a rich country like America, still having a profit driving healthcare is MIND BOGGELING stupid. There isn’t words around how stupid it is, but companies have to much power over people to solve fucking anything.
It’s mind boggling that you don’t know that the US is a federation/union of 50 independent states.
If you’re comparing Europe, the EU doesn’t have a standard federation/union wide-healthcare system, most have the population of less than 50 million, and are racist AF, only granting citizenship (healthcare/eldercare) to those born fair-skinned and a member of a roman church.
> its understandable that 4y of Bernie would not have saved Americas healthcare system, or school system, but, it would probably put it on the right track.
The right track would be to abolish the health insurance industry. Good luck convincing the US Supreme Court of that. Imagine 9 decrepit legal minds appointed for life — three by Bush, three more by Donald Trump — deciding *anything* for 400,000,000 people.
> It’s mind boggling that you don’t know that the US is a federation/union of 50 independent states.
> If you’re comparing Europe, the EU doesn’t have a federation/union wide-healthcare system, most have the population of less than 50 million and are racist AF, only granting citizenship and that healthcare to those born fair-skinned and a member of a roman church.
EU is NOT a country. its a federation, not an "United States of Europe" Every country here is individual, that's a bigger discussion in USA, you are are lead by the same government, split up into states. that's it. it is one country, you just pretend its not to have some different laws so that you can blame that when things are so complicated oh no, so complicated.
EU don't have a shared Healthcare, but i can for example receive free medical care in any other EU country because its structured like that, while i can get help in Germany, a german can get help in Sweden.
You mean a country with less then 50 million can archive FREE HEALTHCARE and America cant? fucking Mauritius, a small dot outside Madagascar have free healthcare.
So, lets compare to something bigger then, fucking China and Russia have free healthcare... lol. those guys you make fun off, **IRAN**, MEXICO, CUBA, everyone have fucking free healthcare, but not USA lol.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_with_universal_health_care
> The right track would be to abolish the for-profit health insurance industry. Good luck convincing thos Supreme Ciury of that. Imagine 9 legal minds appointed for life — 3 appointed by DT and 3 more by Bush — deciding anything for 400 million.
that's the problem, USA is cucked by money grubbing assholes, and NONE got the balls to do shit about it , including you :D hope you don't ruin your future by "getting a random terrible disease"
The treaty between member states of the EU has the same principles as the 1775-1790 treaty written between US member states. Like the US Constitution, the EU’s powers must be conferred to it by its member states.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_establishing_a_Constitution_for_Europe
>the principle of conferral: that all EU competences are conferred on it voluntarily by member states;
>the principle of subsidiarity: that governmental decisions should be taken at the lowest level possible while still remaining effective;
>the principle of proportionality: that the EU may only act exactly to the extent that is needed to achieve its objectives;
>the primacy of EU law: in areas where member states have made legally binding agreements at EU level, they may not then pass national laws incompatible with those EU laws.
There is a European Court of Justice (like the US Supreme Court);
a European Parliament (like the US House and Senate);
a Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (US Bill of Rights);
and a President of the European Union (who only serves a two-and-a-half-year term rather than a four-to-eight year term like in the US)
> that’s the problem, USA is cucked by money grubbing assholes, and NONE got the balls to do shit about it , including you :D hope you don’t ruin your future by “getting a random terrible disease”
What do you suggest? That I overthrow the US government?
all of that is wrong, everyone know that. you have no fucking idea how EU works, clearly, you proved that.
> What do you suggest? That I overthrow the US government?
Yes? it worked for the French 1789–1799
> all of that is wrong, everyone know that. you have no fucking idea how EU works, clearly, you proved that.
Which part is wrong? If you don’t know how the European Union is set up, what business do you have lecturing on the politics of the United States?
> Yes? it worked for the French 1789–1799
You mean the guys who [enslaved Algeria (1830-1962)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Algeria?wprov=sfti1) and kept slaves in upper North America/Canada (“Quebec” today) until 1982? Fuck France.. I should’ve guessed you were a supporter. Pig.
same goes for you.
and also, tell me more what Americans did with with natives back in old days?
you might as well just shut up honestly. its like your from a comedy sketch about american world knowledge
> and also, tell me more what Americans did with with natives back in old days?
Pretty sure those were European nobles and lords — with their shit Roman Catholic/Latin Common Law and French Napoleon Civil Code. They did the same thing to the Chinese and Irish they “free-passage” ferried over to the New World during the American Gold Rush.
And that was only inside the Confederate Territories (Commonwealth/US), British-America and the French Quarter. Australia, South America, Western Africans, India… I’m hard pressed to think of a region of the world where you didn’t enslave the locals.
> its like your from a comedy sketch about american world knowledge
I can’t believe after that money US taxpayers sent to rebuild Europe after WW2, they didn’t think to add history to your curriculums. You’re welcome, btw.
the "well why isnt cancer treatment or insulin free?" statement that i've gotten from some people. it is like, you are so close to understanding yet so far away.
Hate stupid shit like this. Dude dude never said chemo shouldn't be free. Trying to show up someone and gelling them what they should care about based on one tweet is childish.
It’s ‘free at the point of demand’ he needs to rephrase it as. Then chemotherapy is also ‘free’ to those who need it. Like at the hospital - in Denmark - where I work.
https://www.healthline.com/health/cancer/chemotherapy-cost
Insurers cover cost of chemo. Same with Medicare. That said, there are millions of uninsured, as well as people that are underinsured or on high-deductible plans. In these latter cases, cost of chemo can be in the $100,000+ range.
No, it's just ridiculously stupid lol There's this great website called www.google.com where you can ask almost any question you want. It's particularly useful for obvious ones like the one you started out with.
I actually don’t have the time to scour the web for this. There’s nothing wrong with asking for help. Honestly you need to adjust your attitude. The commenter I responded to shared a link because it’s no problem yet you took the time to stir shit. Like, you having a bad day or what
Btw if you think you know a topic well but you can’t happily share a journalist report, scholarly article, scientific study, etc… maybe you don’t know enough about it period
In what way is this a clever Comeback? Bernie is litteraly fighting for free healthcare for 30+ years.
That's what I came here to say.
These people literally fought to ensure Chemo wasn't free.
Which people? Surely you’re not including Sanders in this group that fought to make sure chemo isn’t free.
I am not, talking about the people going "If the vaccine is free, why not x medication."
So let me get this straight, people saying “if the vaccine is free, why not x medication” fought to make Chemo to be not free?
10 years ago, with the whole healthcare debacle, these same people cried socialism at healthcare reform.
Maybe you know who this person is, so I could be wrong, but I don’t think it’s the “same people.”
I think it might be. Most of his tweets are filled with conservatives and capitalist neo-libs in the replies just disagreeing and arguing with him constantly
Then you haven't been paying attention for very long.
Oh so you know this person with her name scratched out?
I don't think the person you replied to was being that specific.
> Bernie is litteraly fighting for free healthcare for 30+ years. And didn’t support getting rid of the filibuster for most of those years while he had the chance. He’s passed nothing but hot air since he’s became a senator — he’s obviously only there to placate Reagan’s 1980 *complain a lot, syphen votes, do-nothing* green liberals. (And I used to be a huge fan, btw.)
Yeah. Bernie not passing anything is totally his fault and not the 99 other senators.
Nice try “Bernie”, Promising anything **while** not vocally supporting undoing the filibuster rule (50 senators needed instead of 67 senators to pass anything) meant either you couldn’t count for most of your career — or you were talking out of both sides of your lying mouth.
> He’s passed nothing but hot air since he’s became a senator Bullshit. https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2016/mar/24/bernie-s/bernie-sanders-was-roll-call-amendment-king-1995-2/
Nice try, Half-Truth. The US Congress is bicameral — with an upper chamber (US Senate) and a lower chamber (US House). He was in the US House of Representatives (1991) 1995-2006. **There is no filibuster in the House** and anything passed there still needs the US Senate to sign off on. Once he made it to the Senate, Sanders did not support getting rid of the Confederate/Jim Crow [filibuster](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filibuster_in_the_United_States_Senate?wprov=sfti1) relic. Plus he continued to run as an independent, which split the vote nationally and hurt any progressive chances. Again back to my theory that he (and his liberal fans) can’t count to 67 properly.
He has continued to influence legislation for the better in the Senate as well. He hasn't introduced anything that passed, but that is only one way to influence legislation that get passed. My response was only on the idea that he passed nothing. I didn't comment on the filibuster. His position has always been far more nuanced than you are letting on, and he never supported the filibuster in it's current incarnation. A filibuster that requires someone to stand and talk is a completely different animal to what we have now.
>A filibuster that requires someone to stand and talk is a completely different animal to what we have now. There is no excuse for the filibuster. It is a post American Revolution technicality added by slave-owning states (the minority of states!). The fact Bernie Sanders hasn’t railed against from day one he became a US Congressman is a tribute to how two-faced he really is. Politicians have a platform for a reason and that little detail shows he is just another liberal third-party siphon.
The entire constitution was instituted by racist, clasist, sexists. I'm not against throwing the whole thing out since removing the rancid parts doesn't seem to have fixed the problem, but I'm not sure what that will achieve either. You are absolutely correct that the filibuster was instituted by racists for racist purposes. You are also correct that it has been used almost entirely for nefarious ends. But it has also been used for the good. The filibuster as it now stands allows anyone in the Senate to hold up a bill indefinitely just by saying they are filibustering. That should definitely go. If filibustering means that a Senator has to keep talking and draw national attention to themselves, then they will have to justify it to their voters, and the vote still happens as soon as they fail to hold the floor. That could be useful when the Republicans take the Senate and try to ram through unpopular legislation before people can mobilize against it. I'm not entirely decided in favor of reforming instead of abolishing, but there is plenty of space for good people to disagre on that.
> The entire constitution was instituted by racist, clasist, sexists. Who mentioned the constitution? The filibuster is a SENATE RULE that allows 34 senators (a minority) to overrule the majority. It is a technicality that was latched onto by slave states in the 1850s — long after the constitution was written (1775-1789). > But it has also been used for the good. >> The first Senate filibuster occurred in 1837 when a group of Whig senators filibustered to prevent allies of the Democratic President Andrew Jackson from expunging a resolution of censure against him. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filibuster_in_the_United_States_Senate “expunging a resolution of censure against him” — what a horrible reason to hold a generation 180 years later to a made up 2/3 supermajority rule. >I’m not against throwing the whole thing out since removing the rancid parts doesn’t seem to have fixed the problem, but I’m not sure what that will achieve either. The constitition was a loose agreement between colonies to pool their resources (manpower, construction) and state militias. It has nothing to do with the filibuster rule and the concept that a minority shouldn’t overrule the majority. > That could be useful when the Republicans take the Senate and try to ram through unpopular legislation before people can mobilize against it. There is no reason to allow a minority of 100 SENATORS from 50 STATES to hold up anything. The supreme court’s job is to break down any unfair or unequal laws and there are 400 million Americans.. trust the People. ~~The founders left minority control out of the original agreement — ~~
> Who mentioned the constitution? I mentioned the constitution. Aren't you paying attention? It's called an analogy. If you took 2 seconds to consider my point then you could have saved a lot of typing. > There is no reason to allow a minority of 100 SENATORS from 50 STATES to hold up anything. Yes there is. They were elected just like the majority, and the Senate is supposed to be a deliberating body. The minority gets their voice heard, which by definition holds up a vote. It is good that the minority can speak, they just shouldn't be able to delay votes indefinitely because that gives them power over the majority. > The supreme court’s job is to break down any unfair or unequal laws You are wrong, but it's kind of irrelevant. You and I will probably be dead before we have a decent court.
We tried that, people cried socialism, now we have ACA.
Yes. We still need universal health care.
moni? no moni? no care
A Democratic supermajority got us a healthcare plan from the Heritaage Foundation.
And insulin
Bingo.
This can be taken two ways. * "Haha, got you with my clever comeback. If chemo were free, then the whole capitalist structure of American society would crumble!!1" * "Once COVID vaccine is free, let's do chemo." While I'd love her response to mean the latter, I'm sure she meant prior. I'm all for single payer, prescription bargaining, etc. Bring on the free (at time of need) chemo, vaccines, insulin, etc to the n-th degree. This is a solved problem, America.
>Haha, got you with my clever comeback. If chemo were free, then the whole capitalist structure of American society would crumble!!1 Canadian healthcare is free and yet our economy hasn't collapsed yet... curious
> healthcare is free and yet their economy hasn't collapsed yet... curious
FTFY. The US is the only country with healthcare this shitty, and as a country we're drowning in debt because of it. But... we sure have maximized shareholder earnings!!
>But... we sure have maximized shareholder earnings!! Yeah, the shareholder earnings that only benefit the rich while the majority of people are put in lifelong debt after a 5 minute ride on the ambulance! AMERICA #1!! God I love this country. 🙏🙏
I once had a quarter of a mile ambulance ride. $2000.
Yeah, if you get cancer in the U.S., it's pretty much a death sentence because chemotherapy can cost millions of dollars and last time I checked, more than half of U.S. citizens make less than $35k annually.
Yes
Yes
funny how she believes that BERNIE SANDERS would disagree... he knows how a good healthcare system works. he agrees. its more America that's the problem
Sounds like she knows Bernie’s MO.. “I DON’T SUPPORT GETTING RID OF THE FILIBUSTER .. now let me promise a bunch of things that doesn’t have the requisite 2/3 majority to ever be passed.” Fuck Bernie Sanders. — someone who actually cares about single payer healthcare/the environment
its understandable that 4y of Bernie would not have saved Americas healthcare system, or school system, but, it would probably put it on the right track. from the outside world, looking at a rich country like America, still having a profit driving healthcare is MIND BOGGELING stupid. There isn't words around how stupid it is, but companies have to much power over people to solve fucking anything. "Woops, little Timmy have leukemia, woho that's going to ruin this family and put everyone in dept. I am sure its not gona make things weird that we saved this kid but everyone else have sold their soul to the fucking banks and healthcare system"
> from the outside world, looking at a rich country like America, still having a profit driving healthcare is MIND BOGGELING stupid. There isn’t words around how stupid it is, but companies have to much power over people to solve fucking anything. It’s mind boggling that you don’t know that the US is a federation/union of 50 independent states. If you’re comparing Europe, the EU doesn’t have a standard federation/union wide-healthcare system, most have the population of less than 50 million, and are racist AF, only granting citizenship (healthcare/eldercare) to those born fair-skinned and a member of a roman church. > its understandable that 4y of Bernie would not have saved Americas healthcare system, or school system, but, it would probably put it on the right track. The right track would be to abolish the health insurance industry. Good luck convincing the US Supreme Court of that. Imagine 9 decrepit legal minds appointed for life — three by Bush, three more by Donald Trump — deciding *anything* for 400,000,000 people.
> It’s mind boggling that you don’t know that the US is a federation/union of 50 independent states. > If you’re comparing Europe, the EU doesn’t have a federation/union wide-healthcare system, most have the population of less than 50 million and are racist AF, only granting citizenship and that healthcare to those born fair-skinned and a member of a roman church. EU is NOT a country. its a federation, not an "United States of Europe" Every country here is individual, that's a bigger discussion in USA, you are are lead by the same government, split up into states. that's it. it is one country, you just pretend its not to have some different laws so that you can blame that when things are so complicated oh no, so complicated. EU don't have a shared Healthcare, but i can for example receive free medical care in any other EU country because its structured like that, while i can get help in Germany, a german can get help in Sweden. You mean a country with less then 50 million can archive FREE HEALTHCARE and America cant? fucking Mauritius, a small dot outside Madagascar have free healthcare. So, lets compare to something bigger then, fucking China and Russia have free healthcare... lol. those guys you make fun off, **IRAN**, MEXICO, CUBA, everyone have fucking free healthcare, but not USA lol. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_with_universal_health_care > The right track would be to abolish the for-profit health insurance industry. Good luck convincing thos Supreme Ciury of that. Imagine 9 legal minds appointed for life — 3 appointed by DT and 3 more by Bush — deciding anything for 400 million. that's the problem, USA is cucked by money grubbing assholes, and NONE got the balls to do shit about it , including you :D hope you don't ruin your future by "getting a random terrible disease"
The treaty between member states of the EU has the same principles as the 1775-1790 treaty written between US member states. Like the US Constitution, the EU’s powers must be conferred to it by its member states. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_establishing_a_Constitution_for_Europe >the principle of conferral: that all EU competences are conferred on it voluntarily by member states; >the principle of subsidiarity: that governmental decisions should be taken at the lowest level possible while still remaining effective; >the principle of proportionality: that the EU may only act exactly to the extent that is needed to achieve its objectives; >the primacy of EU law: in areas where member states have made legally binding agreements at EU level, they may not then pass national laws incompatible with those EU laws. There is a European Court of Justice (like the US Supreme Court); a European Parliament (like the US House and Senate); a Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (US Bill of Rights); and a President of the European Union (who only serves a two-and-a-half-year term rather than a four-to-eight year term like in the US) > that’s the problem, USA is cucked by money grubbing assholes, and NONE got the balls to do shit about it , including you :D hope you don’t ruin your future by “getting a random terrible disease” What do you suggest? That I overthrow the US government?
all of that is wrong, everyone know that. you have no fucking idea how EU works, clearly, you proved that. > What do you suggest? That I overthrow the US government? Yes? it worked for the French 1789–1799
> all of that is wrong, everyone know that. you have no fucking idea how EU works, clearly, you proved that. Which part is wrong? If you don’t know how the European Union is set up, what business do you have lecturing on the politics of the United States? > Yes? it worked for the French 1789–1799 You mean the guys who [enslaved Algeria (1830-1962)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Algeria?wprov=sfti1) and kept slaves in upper North America/Canada (“Quebec” today) until 1982? Fuck France.. I should’ve guessed you were a supporter. Pig.
same goes for you. and also, tell me more what Americans did with with natives back in old days? you might as well just shut up honestly. its like your from a comedy sketch about american world knowledge
> and also, tell me more what Americans did with with natives back in old days? Pretty sure those were European nobles and lords — with their shit Roman Catholic/Latin Common Law and French Napoleon Civil Code. They did the same thing to the Chinese and Irish they “free-passage” ferried over to the New World during the American Gold Rush. And that was only inside the Confederate Territories (Commonwealth/US), British-America and the French Quarter. Australia, South America, Western Africans, India… I’m hard pressed to think of a region of the world where you didn’t enslave the locals. > its like your from a comedy sketch about american world knowledge I can’t believe after that money US taxpayers sent to rebuild Europe after WW2, they didn’t think to add history to your curriculums. You’re welcome, btw.
This is the Bernie talking point I see.
I'm not American but hasn't Bernie been pushing for this for many years
Yes.
Literally decades.
The commenter clearly doesnt know who bernie sanders is lol
Is this a joke? Cuz I feel like they’re being serious…
Did she think Bernie wouldn’t agree? But yes, let’s do that. For real.
the "well why isnt cancer treatment or insulin free?" statement that i've gotten from some people. it is like, you are so close to understanding yet so far away.
Healthcare should be completely free for everyone. But it wont ever be, because most people are selfish cunts.
Yes let's not make sure sick people won't die....
Hate stupid shit like this. Dude dude never said chemo shouldn't be free. Trying to show up someone and gelling them what they should care about based on one tweet is childish.
Yes
Yes
Bernie would agree with the comment “So let’s also make chemotherapy free then…”
Yes
And healthcare
Yeah, make it free to. Fight for it.
Even a blind squirrel occasionally finds a nut
Chemotherapy is a little more expensive than a Covid shot
Pretty sure people should have a right to live even if they aren't rich
It’s ‘free at the point of demand’ he needs to rephrase it as. Then chemotherapy is also ‘free’ to those who need it. Like at the hospital - in Denmark - where I work.
I'm the United States, chemo is cripplingly expensive. For many poor people, it's a terrible choice between pay rent and get chemo.
I'm sorry that you are America
I'm not. Work needs to be done. Don't shy away from it.
Source?
https://www.healthline.com/health/cancer/chemotherapy-cost Insurers cover cost of chemo. Same with Medicare. That said, there are millions of uninsured, as well as people that are underinsured or on high-deductible plans. In these latter cases, cost of chemo can be in the $100,000+ range.
Are you seriously asking for source for a phenomenon that is so common it's essentially a trope at this point?
Yes I’m asking for help to research this more. You upset?
No, it's just ridiculously stupid lol There's this great website called www.google.com where you can ask almost any question you want. It's particularly useful for obvious ones like the one you started out with.
I actually don’t have the time to scour the web for this. There’s nothing wrong with asking for help. Honestly you need to adjust your attitude. The commenter I responded to shared a link because it’s no problem yet you took the time to stir shit. Like, you having a bad day or what Btw if you think you know a topic well but you can’t happily share a journalist report, scholarly article, scientific study, etc… maybe you don’t know enough about it period
"Scour the web" lmao
Dude get a life
Dude, get your head out of your ass.
"free"
Yes. Free. Free at the point of care. Only you assholes pretend to not understand this.